It has been reported in local and international news agencies that Tanzanian Members of Parliament have legislated a $98,000 payout each as a parachute package at the conclusion of their current tenure. Severance packages are usually reserved for major private firms earning billions of dollars in revenue. People call these packages golden parachutes. Tanzanian MPs, however, seem to have granted themselves platinum parachutes, laced with diamonds and glazed with precious Tanzanite.
The Citizen newspaper has quoted Tanzania’s Ministry of Finance, Saada Mkuya saying that the government had raised MPs’ golden parachute to about 160 million shillings (approximately $98,000). This raise is from a figure of about 43 million shillings or about $27,000. Now, although other government officials have refuted this raise ever being passed and while others still have said the President will not sign such legislation (although presumably he already has given this was passed last year), it is important to focus on two aspects of this issue.
The first is that although Tanzania ranks 70th in press freedom, ahead of Kenya and Zambia but behind Central African Republic, press freedom is relatively alive in this country. Yes of course, the Tanzanian government shut down major newspapers last year, but it also tolerates a lot of controversial publications. Or at the very least, Tanzanian media’s confidence in publishing government-damning pieces has grown since the 1990’s and seems to be growing still. We should encourage press freedom by standing by the media when it does publish such pieces that are heroic. This is akin to my plea to defend those that use peaceful legal actions to make government or its officials accountable that I wrote in my piece, A Welcome Precedent.
Of course, journalistic reporting should be professional, especially around sensitive issues like religious tensions or politically-charged issues such as the benefits of extraction of minerals in the country. Nevertheless, we, the citizens, should defend the press whenever it unearths such pieces of information that exposes government excesses.
The second aspect of this news is that once the information is available, public pressure can move government to respond. We saw this with the SIM card tax. The issue was first raised by the media, picked up by consumers and telecommunication companies alike. The crescendo of opposition to the tax led to the President finally signing an executive order demanding parliament remove the tax. Information was key in that victory. If people were not made aware of the tax, then they would probably have passively continued with their lives with it. Moreover, even when parliament seemed inactive, popular support for the removal of the tax still forced the executive branch to act in favor of the people. The SIM card tax issue is exemplary of a healthy democracy. All branches of government were used to remove the tax. People lobbied parliament, filed a court case with the High Court and also pressured the President to act. In the end, the President acted quicker than the other branches.
I hope the Tanzanian people sustain their opposition to this golden parachute. The typical Tanzanian earns about $609 per year. At that annual income, that Tanzanian would need 161 years to earn what the MPs will earn in this one-time payment at the end of their tenures. MPs already earn about $7,000 per month in salaries for an annual salary of $84,000. They also earn a further $22,200 per year for attending parliamentary sessions and an additional $13,000 as part of an annual care allowance. All of that totals to $119,200 per year. For comparison, their colleagues in the United States Congress are paid $174,000 per year. So, although the average Tanzanian only earns about 1.2% of the income the average American earns in a year, the average Tanzanian MP earns 68.5% the income the average US congressperson earns in a year.
Why is it that MPs in Tanzania need to earn closer to their colleagues in wealthy countries while the ordinary mwananchi cannot come close to earning what her counterpart earns in richer countries? Why must the ordinary Tanzanian take 161 years to earn what the MPs will earn in 2015?
To equalize this disparity within our country and comparing back to the US congressperson’s annual salaries, I suggest we pressurize our legislators to get paid the same percentage of income as we earn relative to the average Americans. That would translate to our MPs earning 1.2% of US Congresspersons’ salaries which would amount to Tanzanian legislators being paid $2,088 per year. Of course I am being a bit too crass but the point still stands that our political leaders are being overcompensated for their service. 161 years is far beyond the recorded limit for human life at 122 years and 164 days. It is thus an insult to the Tanzanian people that our legislators should earn so much while the ordinary Tanzanian earns so little.
Nice to read you again. While your frustration at MPs is warranted, I think it should be directed at the economy in general. Who cares what the guys in suits make, it’s likely to be out of reach anyway. I think the source of your frustration is the distribution of income. So rather than focus on 1% of the population, I recommend you focus on the 99%. For example, you might want to make a pitch to a friendly MP; convince him to invest his $98k in a business that will someday employ as many people as Bakhresa does. I doubt you are the only one (including from the MPs themselves) who is frustrated about this. Hey, if that works out, don’t forget to tell us in case we need a job 🙂
@Sceptic: Yes. And will definitely write a piece on that as well. You will also note that some of my other posts like Spitting on Marshall or Shit Out Of Luck I address some of the issues I have with government policy, which I agree should focus on ensuring income inequality is dealt with. I admit that I write too much only on income growth rather than income distribution as well. I will argue for instance that the Spitting on Marshall does address inequality indirectly by trying to convince the reader that government over-regulation of the economy will disproportionately hurt poor people relative to richer folks. But your point has inspired me to address inequality directly. So stay tuned.